In
September of 1998, John L. Collins, presiding judge in Yamhill County,
Oregon requested assistance for a jury completing an intense trial involving
the torture and prolonged death of a young man. This first and subsequent
jury debriefings identified the need for this service, andled
to the development of a jury survey. One hundred and one Yamhill County
jurors, who served on child sexual abuse or homicide cases, were queried,
with 55 responding. The National Center for State Courts, under a grant
from the State Justice Institute (No.SJI-94-12K-B-320), had previously
developed a jury survey for research purposes. This was used, with the
addition of questions regarding what jurors found most helpful during
debriefings. Results of this survey, and information gleaned from jurors
during debriefings, support the observations in this article.

The Yamhill County Jury Survey (YCJS)
confirmed that trial service could place a heavy psychological
burden on some jurors, particularly in cases involving
heinous acts such as child abuse or homicide.1

Jurors, for the most part, consider the
task of jury service to be a serious one, and a service
to which they give considerable time, effort and commitment.
Unfortunately, it can produce what one juror defined
as 'the best and the worst experience of my life.' Bienen
describes jury service in this way: 'For many
it is a rewarding experience, one that is little different
from the ordinary.'2 Bienen’s analysis
is consistent with responses from Yamhill County jurors.
Overall, 45 percent in the YCJS indicated they experienced
some stress from the trial. However, our statistics
indicated that 28 percent of respondents were not at
all affected, showing that 'some jurors may easily
handle these intense psychological pressures.'3

A significant number reported that some
aspects of jury service were perceived as beneficial.
More than 25 percent noted on the survey their positive
experiences, such as 'I was left with a positive
feeling in how our legal system works. Thank you for
providing me with this experience…;' 'Jury
duty was a privilege;' 'I was glad I was
able to serve…;' 'If I had a choice to do
it again I would.;' and , 'Although the trial
that I was a juror on was a very traumatic and emotional
trial, I think it was a good experience.'

As jurors are generally representative
of the community, and may have no experience with the
criminal justice system or with shocking, gruesome
crimes, they may have no frame of reference for what
lies ahead. Once voir dire is completed, jurors
abruptly move from inactivity to being sworn in, with
no time to adjust. Having spent hours expecting to
be dismissed, jurors are suddenly charged with an enormous
responsibility. They are asked to make a critical decision
about the future of another human being, in some cases,
literally a life or death decision. While this survey
did not address the death penalty issue, those in debriefings
said, 'I was tied up in knots, deciding this man’s
fate,' and, 'It was traumatic to make a decision
regarding the fate of a person.'

Once sworn in, jurors lose control over
significant aspects of their lives. The court suddenly
dictates meals, bathroom breaks, even their ability
to talk to one another. Adding to this are concerns
about work and family, disruption to normal routines,
and the daily hassle of finding a parking space or
childcare. This has been described as jurors becoming 'involuntary
participants who have no representation.'4 One
debriefing participant observed, 'Jurors are outsiders
brought into the court’s routine and (court) procedures
get in the way of human beings.'

Once seated, the jury panel may be exposed
to extremely graphic material seldom seen by the general
public. 'Many trials expose them to the grisly
details of heinous acts…graphic displays, coupled with
high levels of emotion, help set the psychological
stage for the extreme stress placed on the average
juror.'5

Jurors are required to listen repeatedly
to detailed testimony about the nature and depth of
child abuse, torture or murder. They view photographs
and other evidence — perhaps a larger-than-life PowerPoint
presentation of a homicide. Jurors are visually and
auditorily assaulted, often for days, weeks or months
on end. 'Jurors will not be asked to relive these
events a single time. Typically, they will relive them
over and over as multiple witnesses and presentations
emphasize the accuracy of the lawyer’s portrayal of
the events.'6 In the YCJS, 50 percent
of jurors indicated that visual evidence (photos and
other materials) and 48 percent indicated that verbal
graphic descriptions of the crimes were the most disturbingaspects
of a trial. During debriefings many jurors commented
on the stress created by exposure to evidence in trial.

In addition to the nature of the material
presented as evidence, requiring jurors to maintain
complete silence about all facets of the trial creates
an unreal and unhealthy atmosphere. These combined
factors foster an ideal climate for the development
of physical and psychological trauma. Denying jurors
the opportunity to ask questions, to express opinions
or to respond to their experiences may compound this.
Jurors are expected to suppress all reactions and become
unfeeling, objective adjudicators. 'Since jurors
are prohibited from discussing a trial with anyone
until its conclusion, long trials extend the period
of time when jurors are forced to internalize their
stress. Typically, jurors are even prohibited from
discussing what they hear during a trial with fellow
jurors until all the evidence is presented.'7 These
restrictions place an almost impossible constraint
upon people who, by now, often feel powerless, helpless
and isolated. Further, 'for persons who rely on
external contacts and as a means of accepting and processing
knowledge, this silence is an excruciating punishment.'8 YCJS
respondents repeated this theme by making comments
such as 'the other thing that was extremely stressful
was not being able to talk about how we felt while
the trial was going on,' and 'I had to try
and talk it out with myself after the day was over.
It was difficult not to talk to any of the jurors.'

Yamhill County jurors were asked several
questions that specifically dealt with the after-effects
of their jury service, including, 'I have re-experienced
disturbing memories of my jury duty.' Over 40
percent of Yamhill County jurors reported that they
sometimes see, hear or dream things that reminds them
of the trial. Having participated in a case involving
the murder of a teenage girl, one juror wrote, 'When
I see young girls walking, I picture them dead or someone
attacking them, or that their parents are going to
ask ‘Why my child? Why?’'

For some, these reminders last a prolonged
period of time. One respondent felt the effects after
one month; two said they felt the effects two months
after the trial; six respondents said they were experiencing
effects six to 12 months afterwards; and three reported
after-effects up to a year later.

Although this survey did not support
or confirm it, other researchers agree that debriefings
can be beneficial and provide several functions, not
the least of which is to allow jurors to ventilate
and express any concerns, fears or worries brought
on by juror service. It provides a forum in which jurors
can release frustration, anger or anxiety that may
have developed during the trial. Jurors can do this
with a trained professional who has an understanding
of the issues they face, and also with others who shared
their experience. While one juror does not respond
exactly the same as the next, those who came to the
Yamhill County debriefings voiced very similar reactions,
emotions and responses.

Jurors were evenly split about the ameliorating
effect of debriefing attendance. Of the 25 jurors responding
to distress questions within the survey, there were
no significant differences between those who were debriefed
and those who where not. The responses were almost
equally distributed on all items including the amount
of distress and the length of time since jury duty.

Eighty-six percent of jurors who attended
debriefings in Yamhill County agreed that it was useful
to debrief their jury experience after a difficult
trial. They found that the opportunity to participate
in a facilitated, organized discussion allowed them
the opportunity to discuss their reactions to that
experience. 'I thought the debriefing was extremely
helpful. It confirmed that what I was feeling was normal
and it helped to talk with other jurors outside the
courtroom experience.'

Of those who attended a debriefing and
returned a YSCJ survey 88.9 percent overwhelmingly
named the opportunity to talk as the main source of
help during the debriefing process. They found that
the confirmation gained from the debriefing process
was extremely validating. It confirmed that their reactions
were similar to those of others: 'only those who
were on jury duty with me understand what it was like.' For
those who participated in debriefing, it provided an
opportunity for a post-trial talk with other jurors,
and this was significant to the healing of 51 percent
of respondents.

The 27 jurors surveyed who attended a
debriefing found the following most valuable:

85.2 percent saw the presence of other
jurors at the debriefing to be positive.

85.2 percent found talking with co-jurors
to be positive.

77.8 percent believed validation from
co-jurors regarding feelings and perceptions of the
jury experience to be helpful.

77.8 percent believed validation or confirmation
of their experience from the entire debriefing process
was helpful.

Jurors also mention feeling connected
to the other jurors as an important source of support.
In their 1993 article on jury debriefing, Feldman and
Bell state, 'this degree of cohesion is important
in minimizing psychic trauma during trials. The individual
members seemed to use this cohesion to take the place
of their need to talk about the case.'9 Bienen
describes jury duty as 'a strange social circumstance.
For an isolated period in their lives, jurors live
together and share the intimate aspects of daily life.'10 For
those jurors who need to reconnect, and for those who
need to talk, the jury debriefing can bring needed
closure and help minimize the amount of residual stress.

Numerous jurors commented on the value
of the debriefing because it brought a sense of closure
to the jury experience. 'Immediately after the
trial I just felt like I was hanging still because
it had been so emotional, and we jurors felt very connected — then
all of a sudden you give your verdict and you leave
the courtroom, all going your separate ways. There
wasn’t closure yet.'

Other reasons for debriefing include
assisting the jurors in returning to normal after living
in a state of disruption, by integrating the jury experience
into their lives, and in diminishing the effects of
exposure to potentially harmful testimony and evidence.
Jury debriefing provides a structured group discussion
designed to alleviate stress and reduce trauma. It
allows jurors to talk about disturbing events that
were felt, seen or heard during the trial. The group
discussion can be a time of healing, a chance to release
or to rid jurors of any shadows remaining from the
trial. Seventy-eight percent of the jurors who attended
debriefings related that it also helped them put the
experience into perspective through validation that
they received from other jurors. Eighty-two percent
of those jurors said that, when combined with doing
so in the presence of co-jurors, the release of stress
was more confirmed.

Debriefings also serve to identify those
having particular severe reactions to jury service.
Debriefers can predict possible future 'trigger' events
and suggest coping mechanisms. Various researchers
mention trigger events, such as 'even after 18
months a variety of stimuli elicited vivid memories
of the events leading to the trial (such as squealing
tires).'11 One male YCJS respondent
wrote, 'I went to the debriefing ‘to observe,’ not
thinking it was appropriate for me. I participated
as much as everyone else when ‘triggers’ were pressed
and I felt comfortable about not making a fool of myself.' Another
consideration is 'triggers' that exist for
some jurors because of past trauma such as child abuse.
Some jurors have been victims themselves, while others
have endured the agony of their children being victimized.
Another juror related in debriefing that her mother
had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse, and
that serving on that type of criminal trial made it
clear to her the horrors that her mother had been forced
to endure. When these issues are raised jurors are
encouraged to seek additional ongoing support and referrals
are provided.

Identified as the most important factor
in creating juror comfort for 80.8 percent of all jurors
attending debriefings was the non-judgmental and reassuring
manner of the debriefers. The sincere warmth and understanding
of debriefers is critical to fostering a supportive
and productive atmosphere that allows for discussion
and learning. Jurors need the recognition, appreciation
and positive feedback given by debriefers, as well
as contact with co-jurors.

Jurors were asked to define other helpful
factors during the debriefing. The presence of co-jurors
during debriefing was very important (82.1 percent).
The validation and confirmation of feelings and of
experiences received from fellow jurors and debriefers
were equally rated (77.8 percent). Jurors indicated
that information they learned (46 percent) and questions
asked by the debriefers (44 percent) were less helpful.

In Yamhill County the jury coordinator
works closely with jurors during their service and
is generally seen as a positive support. Because of
this relationship, she served as a bridge between the
jurors and the debriefers. In the YCJS, 71.4 percent
of jurors identified the jury coordinator as the second
most important factor in helping them feel comfortable
with the debriefing. A juror said, 'The jury coordinator
does an excellent job,' '… was very helpful
and professional…made the experience as pleasant as
possible throughout the entire process,' and 'did
a wonderful job of making me comfortable from day one
to the end.'

The third significant comfort factor
for 42.9 percent of jurors was the credentials of the
debriefers. Jurors indicated that prior experience
in working with various forms of post-traumatic stress
gave debriefers credibility in understanding and validating
feelings. Secondly, as debriefing skills increased,
knowledge gained from other jury panels added to the
ability to verify and validate juror experiences. This
demonstrates the need for debriefers to be well informed
and to possess good people skills.

Alternative jurors were included in debriefings.
Hafemeister reported that 'Juror alternates also
experiences stress in the course of their duties, although
it is likely to be somewhat different from that experienced
by jurors.'12 In the YCJS, several
alternates reported that not being involved in the
deliberation process was stressful. They stated that
they 'didn’t get to finish their job' but
had the same reactions to the trial, as did the co-jurors. 'I
know I served a purpose but I didn’t have an opportunity
to go through deliberations…closure was difficult.' Another
reported that 'I was the 13th juror
and it as rather stressful when the trial was over
and I was excused…After sitting through the entire
trial I would have liked to make my observations and
listen to others.'

Timing of the debriefing is of some question.
Some writers suggest an immediate response, retaining
the jury at the end of the trial so that jury issues
or concerns are immediately addressed and all jurors
can be included in debriefing. Bienen believes that 'the
advantage of offering the counseling to the group of
jurors as a whole immediately after the trial is that
jurors who may be minimizing or dismissing the experience
can be incorporated. The counseling can be preventative,
as well as curative.'13

Our experiences with one debriefing in
Yamhill County held immediately after sentencing in
a death penalty case lead to a different conclusion.
One juror from that debriefing wrote, 'Debriefing
was not at all helpful. It was too soon. The shock
and feelings related to a stressful or traumatic event
often do not surface for at least a few days.' In
this instance, the debriefing was of little value,
as jurors needed to stabilize and to reconnect with
family prior to a debriefing.

Other debriefings in Yamhill County were
scheduled five to seven days after the completion of
the trial or death penalty phase. When possible, jurors
were provided with the date, time and place of the
debriefing prior to leaving the courthouse. If not,
they were notified by mail the following day. Hafemeister
states that 'by asking jurors to reconvene the
next day, they are given an opportunity to rest and
collect their thoughts, and they do not feel that their
participation is an imposition upon them.'14 Jurors
responding to the YCJS indicated that returning at
a later date proved to be beneficial.

Aside from debriefing, the majority of
respondents indicated that the most helpful aspects
in taking care of themselves following the jury experience
was talking with family, friends, a member of the faith
community or other jurors.

Prayer was the second highest rated activity
(47.1 percent) and relying on religious faith was rated
third (33.3 percent). Of the 51 jurors answering this
question, 47.1 percent relied on prayer for help during
the trial; 33.3 percent said they relied on faith to
get them through the trial; and 15.7 percent relied
on members of the faith community to assist them, specifically
naming their pastor as the person they talked to. The
reliance on prayer and religious faith is important
to note for its implications to the faith community
as a source for follow up to jurors who continue to
be affected after the trial and debriefing. If members
of the ministry understand the dynamics of jury service,
they can provide assistance to those affected by it.
They are in a unique situation to respond to jurors
who are conflicted by various emotions regarding the
trial and the defendant. While the YCJS did not question
what types of conflicts caused them to rely on faith,
other responses indicated that the need for strength
and endurance, the exposure to heinous crimes, and
the inability to talk to others, caused people to rely
on their faith as a coping strategy.

Often a judge can discern juror stress
and can determine that debriefing will be a useful
and important part of restoring the jury’s psychological
balance. 'Once judges order post-verdict counseling,
they are likely to ask for it again. It will be easy
for the judges to do so because they will have identified
a person or team within their jurisdiction capable
of providing such debriefing. When judges order a debriefing
session with local personnel for all jurors immediately
after trial, the expenditures are minimal and can be
easily absorbed into ordinary trial costs. It is useful
to do the debriefing when jurors are still considering
themselves as a group and when the disturbing evidence
is fresh in their minds.'15

Yamhill County jurors recommend that
a brief meeting between jurors and court staff take
place immediately after jurors are dismissed. This
would provide an opportunity to answer any legal questions
jurors have for the judge. Jurors also recommend having
printed information available at that time to help
those not attending a later jury debriefing, or for
those developing a delayed reaction to the stress of
jury duty. These jurors encouraged court staff to provide
the following information to jurors prior to leaving
the courthouse at the end of trial service:

1. Advise jurors that they are not
required to speak to members of the media. Give permission
to
say 'no comment' to the media. Many jurors
report that they thought they were obligated to talk
to the press — and feared doing so.

2. Provide jurors with an avenue for
leaving the courthouse without being seen by the
press, the defendant and/or his family, or the victim’s
family. Provide law enforcement escorts to take jurors
to their
cars, when necessary.

3. Advise jurors they can attend sentencing
if they wish. Give directions for obtaining information
about the sentencing date and time.

A Supreme Court Committee in Arizona
recommends further suggestions for the courts:

After three years of working with jurors,
our recommendations include:

1. Development of informational stress
management and awareness materials for distribution
to jurors upon completion of trial service;

2. Automatic opportunities for jurors
to access counseling services through employee assistance
programs through the county system in which they serve;

3. Automatic provision of debriefing
service for jurors serving on difficult and/or high
profile cases;

4. The development of a jury debriefing
service within the state court system;

5. Exploration of the need to provide
debriefing services to grand jurors; and

6. Further research into the psychological
impact of jury service.

Based on feedback from the survey and
individual debriefings, we believe that the courts
have an obligation to offer assistance to jurors, and
to provide debriefing to those who request it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Roi Holt is is currently working as a consultant and private contractor,
including development of the State Victim’s Assistance Academy. She has
over 25 years of experience as a crime victim’s advocate and recently
retired from the Crime Victim’s Assistance Program of the Department
of Justice. Janvier Slick is a licensed clinical social worker, who for
10 years provided treatment to victims of sexual abuse. She is now the
Child Protective Services Program coordinator at the Department of Human
Resources. Amy Rayborn graduated from Willamette University in 2001 and
was a student intern in the development of the project and article. Information
that may be reproduced as brochure for jurors may be obtained free of
charge from the authors. For a copy, or for further assistance, contact
jurydebriefinginc@yahoo.com.

ENDNOTES

1. This survey corroborated the findings
of others working in the field, such as Feldmen and
Bell, infra, who debriefed jurors after the Dahlmer
trial, and researchers Hafemeister and Ventis, whose
works indicate various reasons that jury experience
can be stress inducing.